Subject: Wireless in future meetings

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:06:23 +0100

It sort of had to start happening. Marriott apparently aims to provide
wireless access at 400 hotels in Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.

<<Pricing for the new service is currently under review, Marriott said.
Marriott is just one of many large hotel chains jumping on the WLAN
bandwagon to generate additional revenue.>>

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/12/19/021219hnmarriott.xml?s=IDG
NS

In the same article its says that T-Mobile will charge prices starting at
$8.16 for one hour. (ouch!) And for exactly what kind of connectivity?

So what then for future meetings?

Will they let us play alongside for "free" if we promise to be v6 only?<g>

On the other hand imagine wireless-free WG sessions!<g>

Just thinking forward...

Gordon

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:42:28 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
[...]
> On the other hand imagine wireless-free WG sessions!<g>

I would imagine that the IETF as _customers of the hotel_ can do pretty 
much what it wants.

Note: I'm making an assumption that having an IETF in a hotel is good
business for the hotel, an offer it couldn't refuse.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:33:58 -0800

> wireless access at 400 hotels in Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.

FWIW, wireless access != being on the Internet

Many places use NATs and/or firewalls, or require registered MAC 
addresses (some require that the registration be done 'from that MAC').

For all those reasons, it's not yet clear whether Marriot's style of 
'access' is what the IETF requires. For example, many IETF hotels have 
had Wayport access in the bedrooms, but few of us would accept that for 
the meeting as a whole.

Joe

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:59:54 -0500

>I would imagine that the IETF as _customers of the hotel_ can do pretty 
Depends on Marriott's contract with Wayport--it probably specifies some 
degree of exclusivity.  But Wayport might be happy to grant an exception 
when they learn the volume of traffic an IETF meeting puts out.  :-)

-- 
/===========================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                    |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                  |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                 |
|===========================================================|
|"I only wish I had time to get married myself, as I've told|
|m'wife many's the time."                                   |
\===========================================================/

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:47:53 -0800

John Stracke wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
>> I would imagine that the IETF as _customers of the hotel_ can do 
>> pretty much what it wants.
>>  
>>

Some places charge a "corkage" fee for running your own network when 
they have one too, even if they don't provide what you want (i.e., NAT).

FWIW.

Joe

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:11:12 -0500

Marriott's announcement was that they had signed an agreement with 
T-Mobile to provide the 802.11b network services.  This is the same 
company that provides the services at Starbucks in the U.S.  My personal 
opinion is that the service is pretty poor.

The available subscription plans are enumerated here for the U.S.:

  http://www.t-mobile.com/hotspot/services_plans.htm

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:26:30 -0500

Folks, the Secretariat is quite good at this stuff.  Really. 
The odds that they are going to book us into a hotel where we 
can't work effectively --especially along a dimension as easily 
understood as this one-- are, I think (reinforced by all of our 
experience since Houston), low enough that it really isn't worth 
the cost of the bits on this list to speculate about what 
various hotels might choose to do to individual guests.

Even when hotels have restrictive or expensive policies, those 
arrangements are typically negotiable if one is bringing them a 
very large meeting.  And Marriott is unlikely to sign a deal 
with T-Mobile, or anyone else, that is sufficiently exclusive to 
cost them meeting or convention business from groups that need 
levels of network service that T-Mobile can't/doesn't offer. The 
situation would be different, of course, if it were impossible 
to run two different 802.11b networks in the same facility, but 
that is why there are network identifiers.  And, again, the 
Secretariat is, in my experience, very good at those types of 
negotiations.

I'm almost positive we can find something more threatening to 
worry about :-(

regards,
    john

--On Friday, 20 December, 2002 09:47 -0800 Joe Touch 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John Stracke wrote:
>> Pekka Savola wrote:
>>
>>> I would imagine that the IETF as _customers of the hotel_
>>> can do  pretty much what it wants.
>>>
>>>
>> Depends on Marriott's contract with Wayport--it probably
>> specifies some  degree of exclusivity.  But Wayport might be
>> happy to grant an exception  when they learn the volume of
>> traffic an IETF meeting puts out.  :-)
>
> Some places charge a "corkage" fee for running your own
> network when they have one too, even if they don't provide
> what you want (i.e., NAT).
>
> FWIW.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:41:35 -0500

John C Klensin wrote:

> Folks, the Secretariat is quite good at this stuff.

No argument there.  :-)

-- 
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                      |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                    |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                   |
|=============================================================|
|Rope is rope, and string is string, and never the twine shall|
|meet.                                                        |
\=============================================================/